Young, Kyle A. “Riparian Zone Management in the Pacific Northwest: Who's Cutting What?” Environmental Management. 26 (2000): 131-144. (reviewed by Heather Daniel)
Summary:
Young's article in the journal Environmental Management is to examine forestry practices in the northwest, analyze governmental restrictions concerning riparian zone management discuss the implications of the forest regulations on stream biota. Young pays particular attention to forest resources necessary for anadromous fish populations in streams.
The article's introduction explains the importance of riparian forests within forest ecosystems and as well as their influence on streams, basins and watersheds. Riparian zones have been under special scrutiny in the past because of the close relationship riparian zones have to aquatic resources and quality that directly influences Pacific salmon.
The Pacific Northwest is particular because there is tension between those economic interests in cutting forests and economic and cultural interests in protecting and restoring salmon habitat. Since the 1990's state and regional governments in the Northwest (Oregon, Washington, California and British Columbia) have adjusted regulations to reflect this growing concern of riparian forests. However, after more than 150 years of severe clear cutting in the Pacific northwest, many riparian zones “show signs of ecological collapse” that riparian zone management will not be able to fix in the next century.
The main body of the article discusses established regulations on state land in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (in that case, land that falls under the regulations of that Canadian province). The author provides a table for each state that compares stream type and protection type and deforestation projects. After examining each state, the author uses a table that compares the different states and BC and their riparian zone management practices. Particular attention is paid in this section to the different management practices for streams with salmon fish present.
In the discussion section, the author highlights the largest discrepancies in the management practices in the northwest. The conclusion is that while the entire Pacific Northwest acknowledges that riparian zone management is a keystone in protecting the environmental integrity of fish and forest ecosystems, there is no commonality among the four approaches to riparian management. Each jurisdiction has its own system of classification of stream size and use as well as what trees may be cut in riparian areas. For example, California assess canopy cover, while Oregon and BC examine basal area and WA looks at the number of trees in relation to stream bank length.
Despite measures taken in each jurisdiction, none of the regulations are acceptable from an ecological standpoint. Studies conclude “no-harvest zones of 45 m were required to maintain natural microclimatic patterns near small streams in western Washington” (139). Additional studies that have assessed the full complexity of natural riparian stream systems suggest that no-harvest zones of 70-90 m would be adequate. Currently, only Oregon and BC mandate no-harvest zones in any way. Oregon requires 6 meters of no-harvest area for fish and non-fish streams. British Columbia protects 20 m of no-harvest zones. Obviously, the regulations do little to sustain natural levels of riparian and stream ecosystems.
The article concluded that many factors influence the regulations of riparian management areas and criticizes the current Pacific Northwest Approach of managing until degraded and then attempt to protect. One of the biggest risks to riparian zones is the removal of large conifers and lack of diversity within the riparian ecosystems. The author ends the article by suggesting implementing tax breaks for large conifers not harvested within the riparian management zones.
Critique:
This article is valuable because it answers some of the basic questions we have about the importance of riparian protection zones and the regulations surrounding its management. Again, as in the earlier articles concerning damming on the Columbia River, we see a multitude of short-term solutions without assessment of long-term impacts of deforestation and inadequate protection measures. The other value of the article is in the comparison of today's management practices with scientific studies conducted on what type of riparian protection is necessary to sustain or repair diversity in the ecosystem.
I was very satisfied with the scope of the article because it answered many of the questions I have raised about riparian protection zones and why it matters. The state regulations always begin with clearly stated goals that seem reasonable. This article supports my theory that Oregon's Department of Forestry regulations on riparian zones on private land is very inadequate for the goals it wishes to fulfill. In addition, I feel that the information presented in the article was accessible to a wide audience and its conclusions helped me to think of new questions that I would like to answer.
Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
HC 441: Science Colloquium, Columbia River Ecology
Fall term, 2005
Send e-mail to the Webmaster